Resolution to nowhere

So, who is it that really benefitted from the congressional vote to against the immediate withdrawal from Iraq in response to the resolution proposed by Representative Murtha which reads:

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it

1) Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in

2) Congress assembled,

3) That:

4) Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is

5) hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable

6) date.

7) Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines

8) shall be deployed in the region.

9) Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq

10) through diplomacy.

I can't for the life of me fathom how House Resolution 571 compares to Murtha's proposed resolution. The two resolutions are as differnt as night and day. Of course, if you have any doubts you can read the two sentences of Duncan Hunter's resolution which reads:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

If we do a little contrasting and comparing, it is clear that the Murtha resolution is anything but a cut and run resolution. I dare say that if given the chance for an up or down vote that Murtha's resolution would pass sending the Bush administration into a more hastened nose dive.

Following Friday's political theatre there is related news coming out of Iraq. Apparently a group of Sunni, Shiite and Kurds seeking office in the upcoming December elections have signed a memorandum that calls for (of all things) a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. I wonder how many Republican's will accuse these Iraqi's of being 'cowards'?

With regards to the actual vote on HR 571, I was reading were some believe that by voting in favor of the Duncan resolution that the Democrats were able to avoid the lure that the Republican's were dangling before them.

With all due regards to this proffered opinion and those that share it, those that favored the Murtha resolution should have abstained from voting against the Hunter resolution. It was pretty clear that the floor debate on HR 572 and HR 571 was nothing more than the Republican Party's attempt to capitalize on the politcs of personal destruction.

From my perspective, the Democrats once again stumbled over themselves trying to avoid stepping on the toes of Republicans.


Blogger Graham said...

This is an excellent piece Mac. I think all in all the whole thing backfired. Republicans have come out swinging in the past two weeks on Iraq, but just from a political perspective, all they seem interested in doing is attacking Democrats. I just think what's going on right now, whether you agree with it or not, transcends party politics, and I think that's the way most Americans feel.

I just don't get Cheney getting up there and repeatedly slammning Democrats. It's his own credibility, and the war's credibility he should be focusing on.

Like I said, great post :).

11/23/2005 6:42 AM  
Blogger Damien said...

Samn straight they're up there hooting and harping about comitment to the cause, yet when it came to the crunch Cheney chose a differal(s) over service in nam.

11/23/2005 1:56 PM  
Blogger M A F said...


I would agree that the discussion should transcend party politics. But, I don't see how voting in favor of HR 571 transcends party politics. I was more impressed with the 26(?) members of both parties that obstained from voting. They transcended party politics as did the three that voted 'yes.'

It is ironic that Cheney has accused Democrats of changing their positions on issues, and yet, Dick (and Bush) have made a habit of changing their positions and rationalizations as it pertains to Iraq.


Cheney has always held the belief that there are more important things to do than serve in the military. During Vietnam the most important thing was his backside...in Iraq the most important thing is his backside, that particular portion where his wallet resides.

11/23/2005 6:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home